Kelly S wrote:So, are you saying any "literal" obedience to God is unnecessary?

The literal circumcision was done away with. The literal sacrifice was done away with. The literal passover and pentecost feasts were fulfilled. The literal temple was done away with.

If those are not useful literally, why the rest of the law?

When you talk about not knowing what to do, like say in murder or adultery, those are two instances of not loving your neighbor. If you kill someone, you are not loving them. If I cheat on my wife, I am not loving her. If I steal again I'm not loving my neighbor.

If I eat pig I'm not breaking the loving my neighbor law. You could say that you're breaking the love God law. It was said that nothing on the outside can defile you, and I go back to the literals above being done away with, so why not this? I don't think eating pig is not loving God.

What could that mean then? what is the significance of eating unclean animals symbolically? Mice are unclean, the word tselem is an idol that means mice. So there must be some spiritual significance to it. spiritual dirtiness, since mice congregate in dirty areas? I don't know, it hasn't been given to me yet

auggybendoggy wrote:Bird, I'm not following. Could you elaborate to help some of us out with what you mean?

Sorry, I'm being cryptic, lol.

It seems there's some discussion on what "laws" should be followed or what shouldn't be followed. And then the talk of "maybe we shouldn't follow these laws". There seems to be some kind of a tie in with "if it's not ordered to us, we shouldn't worry about it".

Now, I don't really believe that. There is law and there's reality. You can remove the law, obliterate it, but reality stands. Everything you do still has consequences. There is still the absolute law of the universe in effect.

One often thinks of legalistic consequences. "If you steal something, you go to jail." "If you commit adultery, you get stoned". "If you don't believe, you go to Hell". That's a very low level (I don't think the Psalm's "the law is perfect and eternal" was talking about this, but actually absolute law). Jesus fulfilled this level and had it die with him.

But this level underlies a higher level. If you allow people to sporadically steal, or murder, you will disrupt society. If everyone goes off cheating, we have unstable families. But sometimes these consequences are unclear for people, hence we have laws. And all such engineered laws will always be limited, weak, obtuse in the sense that they generalize on people and the laws are more concerned with keeping societies together than anything else.

And Jesus removed the low level and instituted the high level. We now have the law written to our hearts and we need to make our decisions from the highest level possible: the level of love. The law of real circumstance, the law of effect on humanity, on our soul, on people around us, the law of case by case.

Bird,Thanks for that clarification and welcome to the forum. I agree, well said regarding it is love that drives us and it's wisdom that gives us our prudence. Follow love and you'll be just fine.

But this raises the issue that I've been mentioning time to time - intuition is an issue which will have to be discussed.

I say this because, if I'm right, the literalist position is built on a system that denies any ability of human intuition. For if we did not have the law, we wouldn't know what love is since the law is love. But I've argued before, that prior to any written torah, people knew exactly what love was and violence was always wrong(Romans 1) - in other words we don't need the law to tell us what is love and what is not.

It's my intuition that tells me that eating foods has nothing to do with being good or bad. That foods cannot take a man close to God nor further. Thus I deny Catholic transubstantionism and Literalists who claim eating pork is forbidden.

Instead, I understand the text to be typological and symbolic much as Magma shows. When Jesus says beware of the yeast of the pharisees he wasn't speaking of some infection of tissue. He clarifies for the thick skulled disciples - HYPOCRISY! So I think Magma is right regarding particular points of the law.

But the literalist engages on different grounds and both Kelly and my high school friend try to defend food laws as "health laws". But we've argued that if that's the case, then the tradition of the elders was right - God should have endorsed the tradition of the elders that it's proper and healthy to wash your hands. But that's for a different topic and I don't want to cover that here.

I want to stay focused on this issue that

A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they're be afraid and not poke out people's eyes. (Deut 19).

B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.

How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won't go about poking out someone's eye?

If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus' command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say "YOU'VE HEARD IT SAID...BUT I TELL YOU!". It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: "Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level."

Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it's easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it's in their best interest to abort?

amy wrote:Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it's easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it's in their best interest to abort?

I know I'm considered legalistic on this issue, but I don't believe there is any excuse to take the life of my brother or sister. By making the decision to actively end anyone's life we are claiming a sovereignty over a situation that we simply aren't wise enough to claim. Ending anyone's life necessarily determines a destructive outcome, but by being still we invite the transcendent Yahweh to actively enter our circumstances, fight for us in creative ways and potentially bring about an ideal outcome for everyone. Personally, I try to cling to this child-like hope. Yahweh will do right. Be still.

It is said that the gates of hell will not always prevail, that the Word of God will return, and that men will at last know truth and justice...— Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What Is Property?

I'm reposting this hopeing to not digress away from the issue (we're sort of gravitating towards abortion).

A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they're be afraid and not poke out people's eyes. (Deut 19).

B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.

How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won't go about poking out someone's eye?

If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus' command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say "YOU'VE HEARD IT SAID...BUT I TELL YOU!". It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: "Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level."

Welcome Bird,I think you have a good idea where I'm coming from. I too, appreciated your words.

Hey Auggy! Warning: Just kind of laying it out there.

auggybendoggy wrote:Bird,Thanks for that clarification and welcome to the forum. I agree, well said regarding it is love that drives us and it's wisdom that gives us our prudence. Follow love and you'll be just fine.

Could you give me your working definition of "love"? To me it is many things but, primarily it means we are right with God and our neighbor. That it is our heart's desire to reach out to God and others as outlined in the commandments and that this active - doing love creates also a feeling in us and others of well being. This feeling is what most people define as "love". I do not think it is these feelings some call love that give wisdom or prudence. Deut 4:6 says keeping and doing God's statutes and judgments is wisdom and understanding. Proverbs are the sayings of the wise. Wisdom and prudence from God is the same now because God is the same, He doesn't change. And, as Bird said, the law is written on our hearts. I find the idea "Follow love and you'll be just fine." is too obscure and means nothing to someone outside of christian culture. It comes off as, "always have warm fuzzy feelings and everything will fall into place". I think your words are a bit confusing to me because I stand on the solid rock foundation of Yeshua, keeping Torah and "feelings" of love come from that, not the other way around. God has written the Torah on my heart, I see it confirmed in scripture, I keep and do Torah (as Yeshua did) and feelings of love come.

auggybendoggy wrote:But this raises the issue that I've been mentioning time to time - intuition is an issue which will have to be discussed.

I say this because, if I'm right, the literalist position is built on a system that denies any ability of human intuition. For if we did not have the law, we wouldn't know what love is since the law is love. But I've argued before, that prior to any written torah, people knew exactly what love was and violence was always wrong(Romans 1) - in other words we don't need the law to tell us what is love and what is not.

I do not deny any ability of human intuition. But, human intuition can be wrong and go unchecked. Frankly, and I'm not trying to be snotty here, when I hear someone proclaim they are a christian, I step back and just watch to see what kind of christian they are. Too many people claim Christ and think He sanctions any action that comes into their head. I've seen some bad stuff come out of people and they claimed it was from "the spirit". If they also believed the scriptures were a credible source, they could have checked "the spirit" given behavior to see if it really were from God.God's Torah was given from the beginning. God is love, do you believe He shoved the human race into a hostile environment without giving them some wisdom? Written or no, the patriarchs kept Yehovah's statutes and judgments. It may or may not have been "written down" but, it is clear when people were following God's ways and instructions. Romans 1 actually says the opposite of your use of it. People do not retain God in their knowledge. They continually go astray. Indeed the just shall live by faith but, you will have to reconcile that with the "old testament" because it is a quote from there.

auggybendoggy wrote:It's my intuition that tells me that eating foods has nothing to do with being good or bad. That foods cannot take a man close to God nor further. Thus I deny Catholic transubstantionism and Literalists who claim eating pork is forbidden.

That's cool but, I think you can understand why I would rather do what God says (and what Yeshua did) than go with your intuition. I do agree with you that eating foods may not be about being good or bad. It may be about obedience, it may be a shadow picture of what should or shouldn't go into the temple (which is now us as a shadow picture - 1 Corinthians), it may be a good many things we don't yet understand or discern. I think you can also understand that saying people back then didn't know how to cook pork but, now we do so it's ok to eat means nothing to me. For me, it is not a matter of health. I don't follow you on the correlation between Catholic transubstantiation and not eating pork. Further, I still don't know exactly what you are labeling me in the term "literalist" so, the two may fit together somehow but, it doesn't in my thinking.

auggybendoggy wrote:Instead, I understand the text to be typological and symbolic much as Magma shows. When Jesus says beware of the yeast of the pharisees he wasn't speaking of some infection of tissue. He clarifies for the thick skulled disciples - HYPOCRISY! So I think Magma is right regarding particular points of the law.

I think most people get that. Well, except I think Jesus meant the yeast that leavens bread instead of an infectious disease. This is kind of weird for me because I hear you saying we can throw off some scriptures, interpret the written any way we want, and you can just go with "human intuition" and that's enough because that is love but, you still use the "written" scripture to try to validate the point you want to make. This is my main point . . " . . . and because from a babe the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make thee wise--to salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus; every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be fitted--for every good work having been completed."(2Ti 3:15-17)The "Holy Writings" spoken of here is the "old testament". If the "Holy Writings" are good enough for Timothy, operating in the Holy Spirit and in a "new testament" church, why should they not be for us also?

auggybendoggy wrote:But the literalist engages on different grounds and both Kelly and my high school friend try to defend food laws as "health laws". But we've argued that if that's the case, then the tradition of the elders was right - God should have endorsed the tradition of the elders that it's proper and healthy to wash your hands. But that's for a different topic and I don't want to cover that here.

Matt and I don't have exactly the same views, Auggy. I could care less if pork is healthy or not. I obey God because He is just, right, true, holy and He says not to eat pork (among other things). God never says anything about "health laws". Not to say that health is not worth considering. Simply put, He is my Creator, He created this earth, the animals, He has said this is food for you, this is not. Thus, I obey. He knows a whole lot more than I do.Already went over this but, hand washing according to the elders is not Torah. Simply: elders=man made laws added to or taken from Torah many times.

auggybendoggy wrote:I want to stay focused on this issue that

A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they're be afraid and not poke out people's eyes. (Deut 19).

B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.

How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won't go about poking out someone's eye?

If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus' command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say "YOU'VE HEARD IT SAID...BUT I TELL YOU!". It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: "Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level."

You want to focus on punishment for sin. I have no idea why or what it has to do with my not eating pork or keeping the Sabbath. I have no authority or great wisdom for you in this area, as this authority has been given to others, including governing authorities, as it says in Romans. It would be nice if every person on earth followed the higher path but, as long as we are in the flesh, sadly - it's not going to happen. God commands us for our own good to give up wrongs, not rights. His system always results in Liberty and freedom. American law, includes "freedom". The idea of freedom and law fit together in our minds when we speak of American law. Why not God's law? The fathers said that the whole "freedom experiment" hinged on the people's commitment to keep and do the commandments of God. Thus, we have enjoyed great freedom here. Sadly for a very short time - and I think we all know why. We don't keep or do the commandments anymore and it is the christian institutional religion that is leading the rebellion and forging our chains of slavery to harsh, unjust law. We are on the edge of a knife - thanks to "human intuition" leading us away from God's law (just, holy, good) and into what we call "love". It's easy to say we don't need the law - especially God's "old ways" ("The Ancient Principles" as Jefferson put it) and that we know better. We'll see how we feel about that when we finally do away with justice in America. We'll see what "freedom" is all about when what remains of God's law is gone from this country. When it finally really effects you. When all is not theoretical talk - then we will know how great God's law really is - how "easy His yoke and how light His burden". Even those who profited by eliminating God's law will grieve. Oh yeah, it will all work out in the end but . . . Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. God's just law checks the powers, it protects the weak against the strong.

amy wrote:Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it's easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it's in their best interest to abort?

Hi Amy,I don't mean to say you were doing anything wrong. I have just observed an interesting pattern in the use of the word or action "judge" or "judgment" on the threads in which I have been participating. I too feel for these women. I know the hardships they struggle with. I think it is our responsibility to make life saving decisions. This also goes beyond this issue. If I saw a child drowning, I may logically conclude I can't possibly save her or him but, to me, no matter the outcome - I would still try. To me, logic is one thing, faith another. It is rather cut and dry for me but, that is because I have already suffered through it, already made my decision and would do the same again. I understand it is not so cut and dry for others and that those who haven't gone through it may not understand me. It is so, I think, with all things.

Kelly S wrote:So, are you saying any "literal" obedience to God is unnecessary?

The literal circumcision was done away with. The literal sacrifice was done away with. The literal passover and pentecost feasts were fulfilled. The literal temple was done away with.

Hey Mag,I have heard it so and I understand what you are saying. I see these as "fulfilled" not done away with. The sacrifice (to me) is not done away with - it stands, it is, even now. John saw the Lamb slain in the true temple in heaven - it stands - it is still. An understanding of the shadow points us to the Messiah. Many christians don't even understand who Messiah is or why He deserves that title. To them, He is the American Jesus not the Jewish Messiah. They have only a vague idea, if any, about the importance of the sacrifices and Yeshua as our sacrifice. Wouldn't faith be strengthened by understanding sacrifices and what Yeshua really did when He became the sacrifice? Torah keeps pointing to Him, even in the fulfilling, keeps confirming His credibility as the Messiah. Same with the "feasts", understanding and participating in circumcision, or baptism. Hebrews is clear that there has been a change in the sacrifice but, it is fulfilled not done away with. If the sacrifice was done away with, there would be no Savior. I know I don't view things in a traditional manner and it is not easy to get where I'm coming from so, I understand your concerns about my convictions.

redhotmagma wrote:If those are not useful literally, why the rest of the law?

As with Auggy, I don't really get this "literal" label. I agree that we do not need to keep the law to be saved, that Messiah's sacrifice is our salvation. However, we are still in the physical flesh here. I think we begin to fall under the "too heavenly minded for any earthly good" lifestyle sometimes. Outside of christian culture the idea of "love" doesn't even make sense without good works. We may tell our unbelieving neighbor we "love them, God loves them" etc., but, if we steal from them, kill them, commit adultery (even looking), etc., with their spouse we aren't fooling anyone but ourselves. They know that isn't love. I have only been consistent in loving God as He says to according to the commandments by keeping sabbath on the 7th day. I know Yeshua is our rest but, keeping 7th day sabbath is only an outward sign of that, like baptism is a sign of dying with Christ and being raised from the death. None of us have "literally" died and been raised with Christ - we are still here in the flesh. It is for a sign. Again, I know it is not traditional christianity and may be a new idea but, I do not see it as inconsistent with what Yeshua did or taught or what is written. I know it has long been taught as inconsistent but, those are only teachings taught by men.

redhotmagma wrote:When you talk about not knowing what to do, like say in murder or adultery, those are two instances of not loving your neighbor. If you kill someone, you are not loving them. If I cheat on my wife, I am not loving her. If I steal again I'm not loving my neighbor.

Truth. I agree. I am only extending that idea to all of the commandments instead of a select few.

redhotmagma wrote:If I eat pig I'm not breaking the loving my neighbor law. You could say that you're breaking the love God law. It was said that nothing on the outside can defile you, and I go back to the literals above being done away with, so why not this? I don't think eating pig is not loving God.

In historical accounts, people in Israel were cruelly tortured and mercilessly murdered because they would not eat swine. It meant that much to them to obey God and interestingly, it meant that much to the Greek pagans that they eat it. I wonder why? "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Dan 7:25)Why does the anti christ want to change time and law? What does he want to change it from? God's way of counting time, God's law, I would venture.

"for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands--the least--and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them , he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens." - Yeshua Messiah (Mat 5:18-19)

redhotmagma wrote:What could that mean then? what is the significance of eating unclean animals symbolically? Mice are unclean, the word tselem is an idol that means mice. So there must be some spiritual significance to it. spiritual dirtiness, since mice congregate in dirty areas? I don't know, it hasn't been given to me yet

The downfall in thinking we no longer are obligated to uphold the law in a physical way is, we no longer see a reason for keeping it. Again, this is my thinking, it is not traditional and I haven't run into a lot of people that understand or appreciate it. 2 Corinth 6:16- 7:1 "We are the temple of the living God, as God has said "I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be thier God and they shall be My people." (quoted from the "old testament" - Lev 26)Therefore,"Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." (from the "old testament" Isaiah 52, Ezek 20)"I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, says Yehovah Almighty." (from the "ot" 2 Sam 7)Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the FLESH AND SPIRIT, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

In this passage Mag, I see according to Paul the promises made to Israel is also extended to the Corinthian "goy". And, that he says cleanse "ourselves" from ALL (all means all right?) filthiness of the FLESH, as well as the spirit, to perfect holiness. So, we are the temple of God. Where has anything unclean come into the tabernacle or temple in times past? Only when the pagans desecrated it with swine flesh. We are now the literal (in my terms physical and spiritual) "temple" of God. Isn't it still important? It is to me. Also, as an aside, I think of things like illnesses related to swine and unclean things, scientists messing around with genetics and things they have no business in and think it will be important one day that we kept God's commandments. It's the prophet in me, lol! I do also think of it as how I love God. He knows my heart.

JaelSister wrote:Kelly I'm so happy to hear of the miracle you had with your cancer and your daughter. That is a precious story of God's goodness. I of course do see the other side of the coin, the worst being when a father has lost both mother and baby. I find myself amazed at how you stare fear down. I'm impressed. I know you're not trying to impress me, but I'm impressed all the same. I wish all stories ended as victorious as yours, but life in this present age is unfortunately not like that.

Auggy, I agree with what you said above 100%. I have found some who try to put you under a form of new testament law as well. For some reason I've received 6 videos about head coverings in my email inbox this month, telling me how I'm not pleasing God without a veil on my head.

Isn't our head covering in Corinthians spoken of as the authority over a woman (like a husband) spiritually and physically spoken of as a woman's hair?

amy wrote:Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it's easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it's in their best interest to abort?

I know I'm considered legalistic on this issue, but I don't believe there is any excuse to take the life of my brother or sister. By making the decision to actively end anyone's life we are claiming a sovereignty over a situation that we simply aren't wise enough to claim. Ending anyone's life necessarily determines a destructive outcome, but by being still we invite the transcendent Yahweh to actively enter our circumstances, fight for us in creative ways and potentially bring about an ideal outcome for everyone. Personally, I try to cling to this child-like hope. Yahweh will do right. Be still.

Hi Brother,I don't think it legalistic to value life. This is one basis for my stand for the importance of Torah. If we can't glean from "Jesus" or "the holy spirit" in some supernatural way, or understand on our own somehow (logic, intellect, etc.), the importance of life - there ought to be an objective standard outside ourselves - our own ideas of "good"- to align ourselves with. Throughout the Holy Writings, we see and discern easily the importance Our Creator puts on life and especially the life of a person created in His image. So important that spilling the life blood of another requires the same of us. Torah here can be summed up in "love your neighbor as yourself" and "treat others as you would like to be treated". To hold the life of your neighbor and protect it, at the same level of importance that you would your own life. I feel sometimes we get so caught up in what we don't have to do anymore that we miss the whole flow of life. I don't understand the difference between my situation and the women Amy knows who didn't see a favorable outcome in their situation but, favorable or not favorable, I would rather trust Yehovah and continue in faith like Abraham who reasoned that God can raise the dead! Peace and blessing!

I agree the sacrifice has been fulfilled, but at the same time the animal sacrifice is done away with. It is no more, to continue animal sacrifice would be an abomination to God and an affront to Jesus' sacrifice. People that believe the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices re-instituted are absolutely wrong (IMO). We are the temple of the HS, of the living God. Everything in the OT law revolved around the tabernacle/temple. The whole law is one, echad. If the literal, and what I mean by literal is a literal building of stone, and actual animals being sacrificed, as opposed to spiritual/allegorical ie we are the temple, if the literal temple is removed, the literal sacrifice is removed, if the literal passover and pentecost is removed, you know the wave sheaf offering couldn't even take place without a literal temple. IF those are removed then why not the rest of those laws?

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,but a body you prepared for me;6with burnt offerings and sin offeringsyou were not pleased.7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.’”a8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

He is not pleased with sacrifices and burnt offerings, He did not desire them. Where it says made holy through, the word is sanctified/hagiazo. I'm not saying you are saying we are justified by the law. That has never been my argument. I know you don't believe that. But I think you are saying we are sanctified by the law, and this is where I disagree. The law does not have anything to do with making us holy or sanctified. I think you're saying its the outcome of being sanctified, but I disagree, the outcome are the fruits of the spirit.

Sorry if this is all over the place my brain is a little haywire, I started my yearly detox yesterday, I feel a little buzzed right now. I'll get to the rest later

I wonder how Kelly or any literalist avoids judging people who don’t keep the torah as they define law? I say this because you Kelly defend that human intuition is not enough for you do determine what parts are loving and what is not – for you (as I understand you – not trying to pigeon hole you) God’s laws are “love” and therefore abstaining from pork is love. So if someone eats pork, they are hateful and disobedient. Am I right about that? I ask because you seem to hold that not understanding why some things (like eating pork) is loving should not be left to your intuition. When you say eating foods may be about obedience, that to me is your way of saying…if you eat pork then you don’t love God, for to love God is to obey his commands. So I see you as on one hand not being able to explain how logically abstaining from particular foods shows love, but on the other you seem to argue it’s about obedience (which people do if they love God). I agree it’s all about obedience, but I believe God loves to speak in subtext. So eating has nothing to do with food as it does with you. Bread of life is not about wheat. These were only symbols.

I don't follow you on the correlation between Catholic transubstantiation and not eating pork.

I only mean that if Jesus means literally that nothing that goes into your mouth can defile you then it should be obvious that nothing you put into your mouth can make you more godly. It’s all about faith not about a type of magic cloth, or a piece of bread that was baked in an oven. Catholics seem to think the bread literally turns into Christ’s body when you digest it. That makes no sense to me. (I’m not saying you believe any of that, I’m just laying out that my objection to the Catholic is similar to my objection to your position.) I’m glad you don’t use the health reasons. I find them to be meaningless in defending the law. If abstaining from pork is healthy for you then someone should have schooled Jesus on why washing hands is more healthy than not – after all if our bodies are the temple then we should keep it clean right. I think I recall you appealing to health reasons – but perhaps my memory serves me wrong.

You say I focus on punishments. I am asking because if God has torah on how to deal with law breakers, I’m wondering why you don’t take up those measures. So yes, if we’re going to keep the law, we must keep it all including the laws on how to deal with law breakers. Why do we need new laws to deal with them, if in fact God has already told us how to deal with them. You’re last paragraph didn’t seem to really answer the question directly - seems all you did was declare that God’s law is freedom, people should follow it. I’m asking a legit question.

In Duet 19 God clearly states that the reason eye for an eye is issued is to make people fear.Jesus states “you’ve heard it said eye for an eye, but I tell you turn the other cheek”How do you find these two compatible?

Hi Auggy!I'm sorry, I have been distracted lately and haven't been here on the forum. I did not mean to ignore your response.

auggybendoggy wrote:I wonder how Kelly or any literalist avoids judging people who don’t keep the torah as they define law? I say this because you Kelly defend that human intuition is not enough for you do determine what parts are loving and what is not – for you (as I understand you – not trying to pigeon hole you) God’s laws are “love” and therefore abstaining from pork is love. So if someone eats pork, they are hateful and disobedient. Am I right about that? I ask because you seem to hold that not understanding why some things (like eating pork) is loving should not be left to your intuition. When you say eating foods may be about obedience, that to me is your way of saying…if you eat pork then you don’t love God, for to love God is to obey his commands. So I see you as on one hand not being able to explain how logically abstaining from particular foods shows love, but on the other you seem to argue it’s about obedience (which people do if they love God). I agree it’s all about obedience, but I believe God loves to speak in subtext. So eating has nothing to do with food as it does with you. Bread of life is not about wheat. These were only symbols.

I obviously don't know everything but, I try to walk in the understanding I have until God gives me more. So, when I say "stealing is wrong" for example, I intuitively know that to be true and the Bible confirms it to be true. It is God that speaks this truth, it is not me that says what is right or wrong. If I am uncertain about my intuition or do not hear in the Spirit, I check the only other authority I have - the Bible. So, I agree with God that stealing is wrong. If someone steals, I would say that is a wrong thing to do and I can show them a source outside of myself that confirms that. I don't judge or condemn the person - I only try to speak truth to show them a better way. A person can turn (repent) and choose not to steal anymore. A person can confirm that truth intuitively by the Spirit and with the Bible. When I say a thing is good or wrong, I am not using my own logic or deciding I know a better way than what the Spirit speaks to me or through the Bible. It is our job to stand in truth, imo. It is not my job to change hearts, to bend others or to judge hearts - only to stand in truth. I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that EU even agrees that any sin will be burned off in the purifying fires. I think standing in truth is loving. It is a loving thing to do it now, imo. I do think everything still matters. And, the symbols were/are there for us to understand Christ better. Imagine if we didn't think anything of Him being the Passover Lamb because it is only a symbol. We would miss knowing who He is in that symbol. Now, imagine knowing all the symbols and how Christ fulfills them. Wouldn't that bring greater understanding of who He is? Wouldn't it help us to have a closer relationship with Him because we know Him better? I can say conclusively, Yes! I understand all of us are at different places on the path and I think God gives us a chance to walk that path and grow. I think that is why He has reserved that judgment until the end. I also think He has called us to be transformed into His likeness daily as we walk with Him. Therefore, I conclude that it must necessarily be impossible to remain in the former sins we used to walk in and that should be obvious outwardly if there is transformation inwardly. I do embrace a "literal", by that I mean a physical view how we must look outwardly if we are transformed inwardly. However, the inward transformation or "spiritual" is where the transformation takes place first. I am therefore not bound to a "literalist" only view of Scripture or outward living but, adhere to the idea that the outward man will necessarily be changed by the inward transformation. I simply am not bound to one or the other as a matter of doctrine.

kelly s wrote:I don't follow you on the correlation between Catholic transubstantiation and not eating pork.

auggybendoggy wrote:I only mean that if Jesus means literally that nothing that goes into your mouth can defile you then it should be obvious that nothing you put into your mouth can make you more godly. It’s all about faith not about a type of magic cloth, or a piece of bread that was baked in an oven. Catholics seem to think the bread literally turns into Christ’s body when you digest it. That makes no sense to me. (I’m not saying you believe any of that, I’m just laying out that my objection to the Catholic is similar to my objection to your position.) I’m glad you don’t use the health reasons. I find them to be meaningless in defending the law. If abstaining from pork is healthy for you then someone should have schooled Jesus on why washing hands is more healthy than not – after all if our bodies are the temple then we should keep it clean right. I think I recall you appealing to health reasons – but perhaps my memory serves me wrong.

Ah. Yes, I suppose you could use the same argument about tithing or helping the poor, or any literalist, physical thing we do as a matter of living out faith. My main area of concern is that I live out my faith. That manifests outwardly in my physical person as well and in my inward person. I love God and my neighbor and so I help my widowed friend, my cousin's orphaned children, etc. My "intuition" or conscience compels me to and my physical hand reaches out with provision and love. For me, it is natural to obey God any way I can. In the matter of pork, I know it can not make me godly not to eat. I already have the righteousness of Christ by way of His finished work on the cross on my behalf. I don't do anything to earn God's love, I obey simply because He loves me. If it is the faith of a child that He desires us to have then I have to be honest and say a child obeys most of the time without understanding why. I walk in most all things without complete understanding. You? I did not mean to defend the law. I only meant to share with others what God has shared with me to this point and I hoped that something would be a benefit to someone else, even as I have benefited from others here. As far as health reasons, I said there certainly is merit in considering what is good for the body. If pork is bad for the body then that shows the Creator made us in a way that does not align with pork consumption and then it may be said that all living things are created for a purpose, swine are garbage eaters and the Creator did not design them for our consumption. The logic could continue . . . that it is our desire for that which the Creator did not give to us eat that compels us to eat. That could be called greed. It could be said the same thing happened in the garden. However compelling the idea may be, I don't eat it simply because God said not to and I trust Him in this thing.

auggybendoggy wrote:You say I focus on punishments. I am asking because if God has torah on how to deal with law breakers, I’m wondering why you don’t take up those measures. So yes, if we’re going to keep the law, we must keep it all including the laws on how to deal with law breakers. Why do we need new laws to deal with them, if in fact God has already told us how to deal with them. You’re last paragraph didn’t seem to really answer the question directly - seems all you did was declare that God’s law is freedom, people should follow it. I’m asking a legit question.

Spiritually, I believe ultimate judgment and the refiner's fire happens at the end of the age, as I stated above. I think the flesh is a shadow. Shadow's mirror the image of the real thing. It is thus with the shadow of Messiah and it is thus with us. The shadow mirrors dimly what is going on inside the real being. No transformation on the inside means no change outwardly. Although as I said, we are all at different places on the path. If we are transformed we are being freed from sin. Because Christ died for us we ARE being set free from sin. Intuition (witness of the Holy Spirit) and the Bible concur that stealing is a sin. When we confess our sin and, by the aid of the Spirit, stop stealing we are set free from the sin and are now free to serve Christ. Thus, following the "law" of God does set us free. God's law is just law. How could it not be? Torah makes allowances for honest ignorance and unintentional sin - even for a murderer. There was and is now a sacrifice for those who sinned and repent. God's law is only harsh for those who intentionally sin and don't want to be accountable for it. Without just law anyone who didn't care about doing right according to God, could commit any atrocities they wished and there would be no way for the innocent to plead for help from the hurt or oppression. God has a law, in part, for those who can not defend themselves, who can't take care of themselves and yes, it means making those who would show no mercy accountable for the way they treat the weak. It calls for restitution to the widow (or anyone else) who has had their provisions stolen. A few ways why God's law is good.

auggybendoggy wrote:In Duet 19 God clearly states that the reason eye for an eye is issued is to make people fear.Jesus states “you’ve heard it said eye for an eye, but I tell you turn the other cheek”How do you find these two compatible?

I'll have to look closer at the context of the passages and get back to you on this Auggy. Sorry, it's late and I feel like I'm probably already bogging down the system here. Here are a couple I thought of when I read your fear passages above. Don't know if they mean anything here but . . .

"FEAR of Yehovah is a beginning of knowledge, Wisdom and instruction fools have despised!" (Pro 1:7)

" . . .giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the God and Father;subjecting yourselves to one another in the FEAR of God." (Eph 5:20-21)

" . . .that which I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light, and that which you hear at the ear, proclaim on the house-tops. `And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but FEAR rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna." (Mat 10:27-28)

Hey redhotmagma.... I've been out for a while (working too many hours) but have a couple questions for you...

redhotmagma wrote:The whole law is one, echad. If the literal, and what I mean by literal is a literal building of stone, and actual animals being sacrificed, as opposed to spiritual/allegorical ie we are the temple, if the literal temple is removed, the literal sacrifice is removed, if the literal passover and pentecost is removed, you know the wave sheaf offering couldn't even take place without a literal temple. IF those are removed then why not the rest of those laws?

It sounds like what you mean is that because one part of the law is “killed” it kills the rest of the law.

redhotmagma wrote:Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.the word for sets aside is here with all its usages, (it means to kill)http://classic.net.bible.org/search.php ... _index:337

To argue that if a part is killed (done away with), the whole is killed (done away with), doesn't seem to follow. The "part" that is done away with is the sacrifice, not the entire set of God's instructions.

Also, Yehovah is the one who set passover in place. Yehovah meant the passover to be age-during. In Exodus ch. 12 esp. v14

Yehovah speaketh unto Moses and unto Aaron wrote: 'And this day hath become to you a memorial, and ye have kept it a feast to Yehovah to your generations; -- a statute age-during; ye keep it a feast.

The sacrifice was changed to one sacrifice for all instead of many that needed repeated offering.The temple that was literal and phyisical was changed to our physical bodies where we offer sacrifices.He changed the way certain things happen (what the sacrifice is and the location of the temple) but didn't completely do away with the rest of his instructions (the law).

redhotmagma wrote:I agree the sacrifice has been fulfilled, but at the same time the animal sacrifice is done away with. It is no more, to continue animal sacrifice would be an abomination to God and an affront to Jesus' sacrifice.

I agree.

redhotmagma wrote: People that believe the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices re-instituted are absolutely wrong (IMO).

I think these people are right that the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be offered in it but, I agree with you that it will be an abomination.

redhotmagma wrote:We are the temple of the HS, of the living God.

Agree.

redhotmagma wrote:Everything in the OT law revolved around the tabernacle/temple. The whole law is one, echad

I'm not sure about this. Abraham kept Torah before there was a tabernacle so, I don't believe the Torah necessarily needed to revolve around the tabernacle or temple." . . . and I have multiplied thy seed as stars of the heavens, and I have given to thy seed all these lands; and blessed themselves in thy seed have all nations of the earth; because that Abraham hath hearkened to My voice, and keepeth My charge, My commands, My statutes, and My laws.'(Gen 26:4-5)

Also, I haven't read it specifically stated that the law is echad although, I think I would agree with you. I have to mull it over and pray about that before I can say conclusively.

redhotmagma wrote:If the literal, and what I mean by literal is a literal building of stone, and actual animals being sacrificed, as opposed to spiritual/allegorical ie we are the temple, if the literal temple is removed, the literal sacrifice is removed, if the literal passover and pentecost is removed, you know the wave sheaf offering couldn't even take place without a literal temple. IF those are removed then why not the rest of those laws?

I would not take that line of logic and draw the same conclusions. There is still a literal passover because there is still a literal Passover Lamb- Jesus. He was the literal sacrifice. If He had not been or if He isn't, then we would still be sacrificing animals until He became that sacrifice. I would say that He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world although, the animal sacrifices took place until He became the literal Lamb slain. I celebrate Pesach in this manner not, according to animal sacrifices (not sure if that was already understood so, I should say, I do not live like a Jew under the law but, as a goy grafted into the spiritual Israel - as one who has seen the Hebrew Messiah and so, I celebrate Him in Pesach - I celebrate Him in everything.) Paul has stated it thus . . . "Not good is your glorying; have ye not known that a little leaven the whole lump doth leaven?cleanse out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened, for also our passover for us was sacrificed--Christ, so that we may keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with unleavened food of sincerity and truth." (1Co 5:6-8)And so I do.Also, We are not left without a sacrifice. The sacrifice remains. The law of sacrifice could not be "killed" or we would be without a sacrifice. It could only be changed or fulfilled so it would remain. If the sacrifice did not stand we would be without a covering.

redhotmagma wrote:1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

I agree, of course. But, if Messiah is our Passover Lamb, why not celebrate that with an understanding of what it means to us? And also, just to clarify - these passages in Hebrews are speaking specifically to the sacrifices and priesthood. It is not speaking of all of God's instructions to mankind (Torah).

redhotmagma wrote:5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,but a body you prepared for me;6with burnt offerings and sin offeringsyou were not pleased.7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.’”a8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

He is not pleased with sacrifices and burnt offerings, He did not desire them. Where it says made holy through, the word is sanctified/hagiazo. I'm not saying you are saying we are justified by the law. That has never been my argument. I know you don't believe that. But I think you are saying we are sanctified by the law, and this is where I disagree. The law does not have anything to do with making us holy or sanctified. I think you're saying its the outcome of being sanctified, but I disagree, the outcome are the fruits of the spirit.

I think when we are transformed by the Spirit of God we do, as a side effect, keep the law. If I am transformed and no longer have a desire to take what is not mine but, choose to give what I have instead then I will not steal. That means I would also outwardly, by the inward change, keep the commandment. I'm not trying to earn anything by the law. I think the fruits of the Spirit could also be equated with, or be summarized in the commandments - love Yehovah your God with all your heart, mind, soul and body and love your neighbor as yourself which, as I have stated, is the summation of Torah.

redhotmagma wrote:Sorry if this is all over the place my brain is a little haywire, I started my yearly detox yesterday, I feel a little buzzed right now. I'll get to the rest later

Oh, don't worry about that, J. I feel that way sometimes and I'm not detoxing. I'm thankful for you and Auggy conversing with me on this so much.

MrShepherd wrote:It sounds like what you mean is that because one part of the law is “killed” it kills the rest of the law.

MrShepherd wrote:To argue that if a part is killed (done away with), the whole is killed (done away with), doesn't seem to follow. The "part" that is done away with is the sacrifice, not the entire set of God's instructions.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

?

This is coming after a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, which says a lot.

BirdOfTheEgg wrote:And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It says that it's "becoming" and "ready" to vanish... not that it has.

BirdOfTheEgg wrote:This is coming after a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, which says a lot.

Yehovah didn't get rid of the law that He's talking about in Jeremiah. He continued it by putting his law in their minds and writing it on their hearts.

Jeremiah wrote:31“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the Lord. 33“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord.

BirdOfTheEgg wrote:What Law are we talking about here, anyway? There's a lot of those.

I'm talking of Yehovah's instructions. His Torah. Law in this passage and in the context that I meant is the whole of God's teachings. The word law used in Jeremiah 31:33 is Torah in Hebrew. Torah means instruction or teaching, which is derived from the root word Yarah, which means to throw, or point at something. So Torah gets its meaning from Yarah in the sense that by teaching, one is "pointing things out".

We have the same concept in English in phrases like, "Just throwing that out for your consideration." or "Pointing things out"